Popverse wrote a brief sugarcoated item about how the overrated Brian Michael Bendis got the assignment to write Avengers: Disassembled, which is being alluded to as part of Marvel's next crossover to avoid:
The mention of Avengers: Disassembled in the announcement of 2026 Marvel Comics storyline Armageddon is something that might worry fans of certain superheroes, given the death toll of that earlier 2004 storyline. Turns out that killing off so many heroes — and so many high-profile Marvel characters, at that — wasn’t necessarily writer Brian Michael Bendis’s original plan.
Unfortunately, that he went along with everything as planned, entirely unquestioned, speaks volumes as to how much value he really placed on any of the characters who were subject to such loathsome abuse.
For those who weren’t reading comics in 2004, Avengers: Disassembled was a four-part storyline in which the Avengers have what Bendis described as “the worst day in Avengers’ history” — a day that results in the destruction of longtime HQ Avengers Mansion, the deaths of members Jack of Hearts, Ant Man, The Vision, and Hawkeye, and the discovery that the Scarlet Witch’s mental instability led to her making all of this happen (albeit unknowingly). The storyline ends with the team disbanding.
Don’t worry; a new Avengers formed a couple of months later, in a comic book series sensibly titled The New Avengers. In fact, The New Avengers had been the point all along, with Avengers: Disassembled created as a bridge between the Avengers of old and the new all-star team that included Spider-Man, Wolverine, and other best-selling characters intended to raise the profile of the team. The storyline was pulled together quickly, and intended to have a big impact to get fans’ attention — but even the writer of the comic was surprised how far Marvel was willing to go to make that happen.
I think it was established 8 years later that Dr. Doom may have been behind Wanda's neo-insanity. But it was 8 years too late, and look how the columnist has no complaints over how Spidey and Wolvie were chosen in such a way as to symbolize that the new team was comprised of members who weren't exactly the kind intended for combating the most larger than life villains the Avengers could face in the past, though worst is that these were hilariously cheap selections, shoehorned into Avengers at the expense of established members, Scarlet Witch included. There were stories in the past where Spidey came to the aid of characters like Scarlet Witch, and to think that here, instead of teaming them together in the same group, they wanted to kick Wanda to the curb for Spidey and Wolvie's sake.
What they say about Marvel seeking attention at all costs was also what led to the even more offensive Identity Crisis at DC, and nobody complains about how common sense was sacrified for the sake of scriptwriting that was offensive to women. Nor are any questions asked as to whether it was appropriate to alienate longtime fans, not to mention people who find misogyny repellent. It's absolutely disgusting, and both Marvel and DC have suffered from it since. Now, here's a part where Bendis indicates he never had any qualms about killing any characters the editors would greenlight for the grave:
“I was sitting there cooking my moments and instead of pitching a bunch of deaths, I go, ‘Can I have a list [of characters I can kill]?’ And they came back to me with a list that shocked the shit out of me. I would never have asked for The Vision. Hawkeye shocked me,” Bendis revealed in SKTCHD’s 2024 oral history of Avengers: Disassembled. “These were not asks. They were offers.”
“There wasn’t any debate over [killing] Ant-Man or Jack of Hearts any of those guys for the most part. Even The Vision. They’re not going to be in the new book. They have to go somewhere,” added editor Tom Brevoort. “So, the place that they’re going is potter’s field, and that means it’s explosive. Not to be gauche about it, but obviously death in comics sells. People turn up when superheroes go belly up. And so, the idea that they kill off a bunch of these characters was exciting.”
As a way of grabbing attention, it worked; Disassembled was the start of a significant sales renaissance for the Avengers as a franchise, catapulting the team back into the collective attention of fandom in a way it hadn’t been in decades. All of which should make fans of current day Marvel superheroes a little bit nervous — especially given that there’s now a Macguffin in the Marvel Universe to create new versions of old heroes pretty easily…
This is head-shakingly stupid too, mainly because no sales figures are presented. And to sell comics based on characters getting slaughtered is horrific and offensive, but do these overrated writers care? Even now, when what's alleged has mostly waned - mainly because the audiences were driven away - it's unlikely they'll ever admit death for the sake of it is repellent. Unfortunately, the seeds for this mentality were laid out long ago, with Gwen Stacy's death at the hands of the Green Goblin one of the beginners, and DC's killing off Supergirl, no matter how heroically she was portrayed in Crisis on Infinite Earths notwithstanding, another horrid prominent example. All because the writers either don't know what to do with the characters, or they believe everybody's that fine with casually killing off characters and never cared about the designated targets in the first place. Or worst, because they believe the audience is all that desensitized to violence. I've had the feeling DC's management was even more lacking in confidence in past decades, and it got worse when Identity Crisis came about, minimizing serious issues like sexual assault as it did during the same year Disassembled came out.
I looked at what's available from SKTCHD's interview from last year, and a problem with their MO is that they employ a paywall for a lot of articles, so I can't tell if anything was brought up about Scarlet Witch. But I wouldn't be shocked if anything that does come up is pretty sleazy. For now, I guess I'll highlight some examples of what is available, and they do offer a surprisingly large amount regardless that's quite sugarcoated, to say nothing short of disgusting. For example:
One of the most notable examples of this from the history of superhero comics was published 20 years ago. It was a four issue storyline that featured everything you could imagine from this type of tale. An endless onslaught of villains! A million guest stars! The destruction of an iconic location! Character deaths! A long-standing hero breaking bad! You name it, this comic had it. More than that, it led to a complete status quo change for the franchise it belonged to, helping turn what was already a big moment into something more.
[...] While it was polarizing upon its release, [Personal take: I find it to be an exciting superhero blockbuster.] it led to one of the most creatively fertile and commercially successful periods the franchise has ever seen, starting with Bendis and Finch’s New Avengers #1 that came in its wake. More than that, it was the beginning of one of the most prolific partnerships in Marvel’s modern era, with Bendis and Editor Tom Brevoort’s collaboration helping define an uncommonly strong period for the publisher.
Whatever your opinion of it is, Avengers Disassembled was a massive story. In the events that transpired in its pages. In the conversation surrounding it. In the impact it had down the line. And with its 20th anniversary [Avengers #500 kicked off the storyline with an issue that arrived on July 28th, 2004.] and another of those moments of transition nearly upon us, [One that even shares a key player from this story in Brevoort.] it felt like the right time to revisit Avengers Disassembled and how it came to be.
No matter what the interviewer says, this is insulting the fandom, and perpetuates examples of apologia that're prevalent from then till now. I'm not buying the notion the interviewer's actually an Avengers fan, an X-Men fan, or even a Spider-Man fan. There's no sales figures given here either, and worst is how the interviewer dismisses any questions of merit and morality for the sake of selling at all costs. Something that continues to this day, and nobody's willing to admit sales are dismal. Again, where does he get off lecturing us that Disassembled is "massive" and literally got everybody to buy it month after month simply because it killed characters and gave Wanda a fate worse than death? This is nothing more than tabloid nonsense.
Tom Brevoort (Editor of Avengers Disassembled and New Avengers): When we get to this period, [This was around 2003.] Avengers was not a top 10 seller. But it still sold respectably, and it still carried its weight as an upper midlist title. It had good talent on it, and it was generally well regarded. It just wasn’t as fresh and exciting as what was going on in the Ultimate line.
Brian Michael Bendis (Writer of Avengers Disassembled and New Avengers): (The Avengers) were doing absolutely fine.
Brevoort: Geoff (Johns) had signed an exclusive deal with DC, so we had to replace the writer on Avengers. And this was in the middle of the days when (then-Marvel President) Bill Jemas was at his craziest, so I needed to cast somebody that I could get Bill and (then-Marvel Editor-in-Chief) Joe (Quesada) to approve.
So, we ended up with Chuck (Austen).
Austen’s first issue was January 2004’s Avengers #77, and his run was troubled from the start. As Brevoort said, “almost every story he did wasn’t really the story he originally pitched by the time it got to the page.” The demands of leadership and Marvel’s own universe resulted in necessary adjustments, something that made delivering a quality title a tricky proposition. They still had big plans, though, as Brevoort, Austen, and artists Olivier Coipel and Scott Kolins knew they were on their way to a big anniversary issue in Avengers #500, which was set to arrive later that year. The team was already well into plans for that — and more.
If this was supposed to be a justification for where they went with Bendis' story, it's just as reprehensible as what DC did to the 2nd Green Lantern, Hal Jordan, during Emerald Twilight. Interesting how Brevoort uses the Ultimates, one of the crudest alternate world takes on a Marvel title, as an excuse for where they went with Bendis' shoddy story in Disassembled. How interesting "quality" comes up here, when the finished product was nothing of the sort, and no challenging queries are raised in that context. Yet interesting they bring up Austen, because he was a writer whom some PC advocates were only willing to admit was bad based on how, leftist or not, he didn't meet their standards. This also reminds me of when
the disgraced Gerard Jones was writing Green Lantern during 1990-93, and then, simply because
he screwed up horribly, that somehow justified Emerald Twilight. It sounds vaguely like the same thinking affected where things went with Avengers too.
Amidst all this, Marvel was going through a bit of a transition, as well. Its focus wasn’t even on its original line of comics but the Ultimate line, a parallel universe that had its own Avengers in Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch’s The Ultimates. Ultimate Marvel was a major point of emphasis for Jemas and Quesada, creating a situation where the “classic Marvel universe” material wasn’t “well-supported” in the moment, according to Brevoort. That was the way things were. But shortly before this story truly begins, there was a change in leadership. Jemas was out and Dan Buckley was in as the new publisher of Marvel. This was big for two reasons, one of which was Brevoort’s own health. He had an “incredibly contentious” relationship with Jemas.
Brevoort: He and I did not see eye to eye and did not get along. My job was not fun at all, to the point I would be thinking to myself on a daily basis, “Is today going to be the day that I’m just going to blow a gasket and keel over, or is today going to be the day that I hurl him down an elevator shaft?”
One of these two things is going to happen eventually.
The other reason it was important was it created an opportunity for the original line of Marvel comics to retake its place in the hierarchy, if only because of where Buckley’s interest lied.
Bendis: The Ultimate line took off in a way that was beyond what anyone was hoping for.
Brevoort: The Ultimate Universe was the new hotness for a couple of years.
Gee, that hints it was wearing thin and turning stale sooner than expected. Mark Millar's take was shameful, right down to how he treated
the alternate world Wasp, and to think they'd go the sleazy route in order to compete with his book is atrocious. Including how Tigra was treated. It's certainly surprising to learn Brevoort wasn't comfy with Jemas, yet even after the latter left Marvel, any destructive approach Jemas put to use remained, and Brevoort contributed to much of it over the years that followed, including how, by this time, a lot of the stories he edited
emphasized heroes fighting themselves. And when they turn to a storyboard meeting that preceded the official writing, they say that:
Brevoort: The conversation came around to Avengers and it went hot and heavy fast. And the reason it went hot and heavy fast as much as anything was Mark (Millar) and Brian were both there.
Bendis: Mark and I both had strong takes on what team books are and what they should be.
Brevoort: What Mark said essentially was, “When I was a kid growing up, I would buy Justice League of America. The reason I would buy Justice League of America is I would get all the best superheroes in one story. Why is it that the Avengers doesn’t have all the best guys in it?” And this became the conversation that dominated this setup.
Bendis: My bugaboo from when I was a kid was, “Why aren’t Spider-Man and Wolverine on the Avengers? Why aren’t the Avengers the six coolest people in the Marvel Universe?”
And here too is a serious flaw: they're going according to whom they consider their "favorites" (and considering where they went with Avengers, even that's questionable), not by the entertainment value in the finished product. And most of the writers of the past century didn't cast new team members at the expense of the core members. So what's the point? I'm not surprised Millar had no issue with where they were going, since it's not like he was respecting the same characters in his own alternate dimension title. The discussion continues with the following:
Brevoort: Most of my arguments about things like why Spider-Man and Wolverine shouldn’t be in the Avengers had less to do with the Avengers and more to do with Wolverine and Spider-Man. Part of the thing that makes Spider-Man work is he has problems balancing his superhero life and his real life, and those problems typically involve money woes, difficulties being in multiple places at the same time, and the impact that being a superhero has on his relationships. So many of those problems just go away if he’s got the Avengers as his buddies on speed dial.
Bendis: I remember the argument was, “Spider-Man’s not an Avenger.” That was the desk-pounding moment. And I was like, “Yeah, that sounds like a good story about why Spider-Man’s not an Avenger, or why Spider-Man is graduating to be an Avenger.” It just sounded like a good story to me. That was my argument. And if it’s only for a year and it didn’t work…even that’s interesting.
Brevoort: By the end of the day. I walked out of that meeting being like, “This again,” because I’d been through things like this with (Jemas) a lot. I came out of that evening going, “I don’t know what the hell I’m going to do now. This is another kick in the teeth.” But after having the night to kind of settle myself, the thing that made (it better) was, “Okay, Mark is pitching this. Mark is going to write this book. I know Mark. I can work with Mark. This will be fine. I’ll go in, and me and Millar, we’ll be able to do this, and we’ll figure it out.”
Interesting how Millar's backing for the direction persuaded Brevoort to go along. Additionally interesting how Mary Jane Watson isn't brought up, but then, if Axel Alonso was fine with One More Day, it shouldn't be surprising if Brevoort was too. Some of his arguments, however, could just as easily be made about Iron Man and Thor as well, based on what relationships were to be seen in their solo titles. Putting Spidey in a team title isn't the problem, it's just how plausible it is or isn't that's the problem. There were times when Spidey appeared in Avengers, and that itself was okay, but it wasn't based on recognition, but how good a story could be built around him. The same could be said for Wolverine, based on whether a plausible scenario could be written up about whether Capt. America approved of his claws. And if the Black Knight was a member before, blades alone aren't a problem, just the writing merit, or lack thereof.
The promise of New Avengers was why Avengers Disassembled existed at all. It was the path to a new era for a new team. How Bendis got to this squad of A-listers was up to him, Brevoort, and everyone else. What mattered most to the room was the destination. Everyone viewed it as one with great potential — even Brevoort.
Brevoort: As much as I argued, and I certainly was defending my existing creative team and defending my ego and pride, I always knew New Avengers would work. If you put Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the big characters in Avengers, that’s going to work. It was less about that and more about, “You’re trashing this thing that I’ve just been building with this other team and we’re treating them not terribly well.” That as much as anything was the concern.
And here's where Brevoort contradicts any previous argument he may have had that he didn't think it a good idea to put Spidey and Wolvie in the Avengers. Yet how hilarious he claims he'd worried they were deconstructing what he'd built up with previous writers, because on the one hand, he went along with Bendis' cheap vision, and on the other, the writing turned out by the aforementioned Johns
was awful, as was Austen's. Kurt Busiek's Avengers run was the last palatable run on the series to date, and it's a shame he's such a leftist wokester. That said, I will say that if Brevoort and company deconstructed the best parts of Busiek's run, that's why it's such a sad affair.
This is about what I could get from what the site didn't put behind a paywall, but one more thing I will add here is what a commentor replied:
I can say, without hesitation, that I was one of the readers Disassembled drove away. It remains (and will remain) a gap in my collection and mind, along with everything else Bendis ever wrote for the Avengers. I appreciate that he and Tom can look back at the warts (some of them), but not enough was made of how odious Bendis was online, including a CBR interview I can unfortunately no longer find where he said that long time readers were just mad that he wasn’t doing “Roy Thomas” type stories and that he could write you “as Roy Thomas-y of a story as you want.” I’ve never forgotten that.
Bendis is no Thomas, nor did he ever turn out a story as good as what Thomas did, though if there's a shortcoming Thomas' writing may have had, it's that he wasn't all that different from some other writers of the times who chose to pair up superheroes and superheroines with each other, rather than developing civilian co-stars who could be paired up with the costumed characters. Now that I think of it, did Scarlet Witch ever have a civilian boyfriend? I do own a lot of Avengers stories in Epic Collection archives now, so I'll have to find the time to read as many of those as possible to make sure I know the exact answer, but if Wanda was never paired up with a mortal man on a long or short basis, that's got to be saying something.
Anyway, it's sad but no surprise how these apologists for Marvel/DC continue to fluff-coat their worst output since the turn of the century, and with people like them still running the department store, that's why even Avengers will never recover, nor will team titles see any talented writing.
Labels: Avengers, bad editors, crossoverloading, golden calf of death, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, violence, women of marvel
